*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 9th December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 & CMs No.5937/2014 (for stay) & 5939/2014
(for filing additional documents).
SATYA PRAKASH MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinay J. Hegde & Mr. P.K. Bansal,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Digvijay Rai, Mr. Jaiveer, Ms. Ruby
Singh, Mr. K.D. Chopra & Ms. Nehga
Gupta, Advs. for AAI.
Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
K. Raghavacharuvulyu, Mr. Kailash
Pandey, Ms. Arunima Pal & Mr. Ranjeet
Singh, Advs. for R-3,6&8.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), (i) impugns the Request for Qualification (RFQ) issued in August, 2012, the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in September, 2013 and the Award of Concession granted in October, 2013 by the respondent no.2 Airports Authority of India (AAI) to the respondent no.5 Travel Food Services Chennai Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.6 Travel Food W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 1 of 8 Services Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. to develop, operate and maintain the Food and Beverages Outlets at Chennai and Kolkata Airports respectively; and, (ii) seeks a direction to the respondent no.4, Chairman, AAI to not implement or give effect to the said contracts in any manner whatsoever.
2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner, carrying on business in computer designing and printing work at Delhi, that the RFQ and the RFP were tailor made for the respondents no.5 & 6; that though for the sake of showing competition, the respondents no.8 & 9 M/s. Travel Food Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Devyani International Pvt. Ltd. respectively also participated but the respondents no.5,6,8 & 9 have common Directors and shareholders; that the respondent no.3 Chief Vigilance Officer, AAI and the respondent no.7 Mr. J.N. Bhavani Prasad, the External Independent Monitor, AAI had in November, 2013 made a recommendation of termination of the contracts with the respondents no.5 & 6 for the reason of the same having been awarded contrary to the prescribed procedure, but no action was taken.
3. On a reading of the petition we were intrigued as to how the petitioner, a resident of Delhi and in no way connected with the subject matter of the petition, got interested therein and collected such detailed information and W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 2 of 8 documents as pleaded in and filed with the petition, with respect to the subject contracts. Though the petitioner pleaded to have become aware of the facts through media reports but neither any particulars of the media nor any copy of the reports from which the petitioner had gathered the details, were pleaded / filed. More so, when the petitioner, in the past had not filed any PIL. We were therefore suspicious and felt that the petition, rather than in public interest, was in the interest of either the jilted competitors of the respondents no.5 & 6 or the persons affected by the award of contracts aforesaid to the respondents no.5 and 6.
4. We also entertained doubt as to whether it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction, in the matter of grant of contracts with respect to Airports at Chennai and Kolkata.
5. When the petition came up first on 7th May, 2014, the senior counsel for the respondent no.2 AAI and the senior counsel for the respondents no.5&6 appeared and informed that similar issue as raised in this petition had been considered by the High Court of Madras and the writ petition had been dismissed. We, on that date also enquired from the counsel for the petitioner of our said doubts.
W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 3 of 8
6. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. Arguments on the maintainability of the petition were finally heard and judgment reserved.
7. The counsel for the respondents no.5 & 6 handed over in the Court, a copy of the W.P.(C) No.6202/2014 dated 25th February, 2014 filed in the High Court of Madras by one M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., copy of the Rejoinder dated 9th April, 2014 of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to the counter affidavit filed therein by the AAI and the orders dated 28th February, 2014 and 29th April, 2014 of the High Court of Madras in the said writ petition. A perusal of the said documents shows the said M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to have filed the said writ petition challenging the action of the AAI, of terminating the license granted to it for operating a restaurant on the second floor of the Chennai Airport, also on the ground of the Award of Concession granted to the respondent no.5 (and owing whereto the license given to M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. was being terminated) being illegal. The senior counsel for the respondents no.5&6 has drawn attention to the rejoinder filed by M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to the counter affidavit of AAI in the said proceedings to demonstrate that the same grounds as urged in the present petition were taken therein also. It is further demonstrated that certain portions / paragraphs of the petition filed before this W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 4 of 8 Court are verbatim same as the portions of the said rejoinder. It is yet further shown that M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. in the said rejoinder also disclosed knowledge of the present PIL filed by the petitioner herein. It is yet further shown that while the said rejoinder is dated 9 th April, 2014, the petition before this Court though is dated 2nd April, 2014 but was filed on 6th May, 2014. The said petition was disposed of by the Madras High Court upon the relief claimed therein being restricted to the said M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. being not dispossessed save by due process of law. It is argued that all this shows that the petitioner and M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. were / are acting in concert in as much as M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. on 9th April, 2014 i.e. even prior to filing of the present petition on 6 th May, 2014 could not have known about the pendency of the present petition. The senior counsel for the respondents no.5 & 6 in this regard also showed the appearance of Advocates in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Golden Chariot Airport (2010) 10 SCC 422 where the Advocate appearing for the petitioner herein had appeared for Golden Chariot Airport having interest similar to that of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. The senior counsel for the respondents no.5&6 also handed over in Court a copy of the paper book of SLP (C) No.20805/2014 filed by the petitioner herein in the Supreme Court W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 5 of 8 aggrieved from the non-consideration on 16th July, 2014 by this Court of the application of the petitioner for interim relief restraining the implementation of the Concession awarded by the respondent no.2 AAI to the respondents no.5 &
6. We may record that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 19 th August, 2014.
8. It appears that the said matter of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. ultimately came to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.24994/2014 and which was dismissed on 15th September, 2014 giving a month‟s time to M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to deliver vacant possession of the premises.
9. It is argued that the present proceedings are at the behest of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. in an attempt to retain possession inspite of the petition filed by it in the Madras High Court being dismissed till the Supreme Court.
10. The counsel for the petitioner though not able to controvert all the aforesaid, meekly / faintly contended that the present petition being ready on 2nd April, 2014 advance copies thereof were served on respondents no.10 & 11 i.e. Airlines Operators Committee, Chennai and Kolkata who may have supplied copies of the same to M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 6 of 8
11. After the close of hearing and judgment was reserved, the senior counsel for the respondents no.5 & 6 handed over copies of the following judgments "on false and frivolous Public Interest Litigation" and on minimal interference of Courts in award of contracts by the State:-
(i) Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 609;
(ii) Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka (2012) 8 SCC 216;
(iii) State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402;
(iv) Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 138;
(v) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590; and,
(vi) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349.
12. In the face of the foresaid, we need not say more. However our suspicions are strengthened that the petition though filed as a PIL, is motivated by private interests. We refrain from expressing any categorical opinion as it W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 7 of 8 may not be appropriate to do so without full fledged enquiry. However the said suspicion and the other doubts noticed by us above, are enough for us to not deem it appropriate to entertain this petition. We accordingly dismiss the petition with costs of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner payable to the respondent no.2 AAI within four weeks of today.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 09, 2014 „pp‟ W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 Page 8 of 8